I think I've messed up my defense is it too late.??

1505grandad

"7. The signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by The British Parking Association (BPA). The BPA Code of Practice says “Signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand” and these signs fail to do so as they are small, hidden or facing the wrong way."

You stated in an earlier post:-

"The parking firm is ES parking enforcement ltd and Gladstone's solicitors are their representatives  thanks for your help I so appreciate it!"

If the claimant is as above they are IPC AoS members and you should use/quote the relevant IPC CoP.

Melabear

1505grandad said:

"7. The signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by The British Parking Association (BPA). The BPA Code of Practice says “Signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand” and these signs fail to do so as they are small, hidden or facing the wrong way."

You stated in an earlier post:-

"The parking firm is ES parking enforcement ltd and Gladstone's solicitors are their representatives  thanks for your help I so appreciate it!"

If the claimant is as above they are IPC AoS members and you should use/quote the relevant IPC CoP.

So shall I add that to point 7?  Or delete the bpa bit? Sorry I don't understand all these abbreviations and technical terms! I promise my IQ is more than 3 😩

Not_A_Hope

There are two separate organisations that act as trade bodies for PPC. 1505Grandad is pointing out your PPC belong to the IPC rather than the BPA so you should quote the relevant section of their Code of Practice instead. Try Googling IPC Code of Practice - it will give you the latest COP. Please check the date of the COP against the date of the alleged parking event. You may have to reference a previous version if the date of the alleged offence is prior to 1st July 2021

Melabear

Coupon-mad said:

You need to also add in a paragraph near the Jopson one, that cites the BPA Code of Practice clause about grace periods on arrival.  That is important. They breached the CoP if they only took photos in less than 5 minutes!

15. Furthermore the BPA states "The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes." Since I wasn't there for five minutes from start to finish they breached this Code of Practice and absolutely no Grace period was given.

I have added this paragraph re grace periods is this okay?

Melabear

Not_A_Hope said:

There are two separate organisations that act as trade bodies for PPC. 1505Grandad is pointing out your PPC belong to the IPC rather than the BPA so you should quote the relevant section of their Code of Practice instead. Try Googling IPC Code of Practice - it will give you the latest COP. Please check the date of the COP against the date of the alleged parking event. You may have to reference a previous version if the date of the alleged offence is prior to 1st July 2021

so i should quote the ipc and not the bpa?

Fruitcake

Melabear said:

Not_A_Hope said:

There are two separate organisations that act as trade bodies for PPC. 1505Grandad is pointing out your PPC belong to the IPC rather than the BPA so you should quote the relevant section of their Code of Practice instead. Try Googling IPC Code of Practice - it will give you the latest COP. Please check the date of the COP against the date of the alleged parking event. You may have to reference a previous version if the date of the alleged offence is prior to 1st July 2021

so i should quote the ipc and not the bpa?

If the claimant is a member of the IPC, then yes.

Melabear

the IPC say grace periods are 10 minutes after not before so shall i just delete that point if i cant quote the bpa?

the ipc states this

Motorists must be allowed a sufficient Consideration Period so they may make
an informed decision as to whether or not to enter or remain on the Private Land.
If a Motorist chooses to reject the opportunity by entering or remaining on the
Private Land without reading terms and conditions, they may be deemed to have
accepted them immediately.

will they argue that i accepted them immediately or do i still have a chance with being there for less than 2 minutes from start to finish?

Not_A_Hope

Well if I was the judge I would not accept photos a few seconds apart as evidence they provided a sufficient consideration period.

If you get this submitted today to both the court and the claimants solicitors I would not be surprised to see the PPC discontinue before the hearing. 

Melabear

1505grandad said:

"7. The signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by The British Parking Association (BPA). The BPA Code of Practice says “Signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to see, read and understand” and these signs fail to do so as they are small, hidden or facing the wrong way."

You stated in an earlier post:-

"The parking firm is ES parking enforcement ltd and Gladstone's solicitors are their representatives  thanks for your help I so appreciate it!"

If the claimant is as above they are IPC AoS members and you should use/quote the relevant IPC CoP.

i have changed it to this

7. The signage fails to adhere to the standards laid out by the International Parking Community (IPC) Code of Practice, which states " The Operator must have clear signage located on the Private Land to confirm the Terms and Conditions in place." and these signs fail to do so as "The size of the text on the sign must be appropriate for the location of the sign and should be clearly readable by a Motorist having regard to the likely position of the Motorist in relation to the sign." and this isnt met as seen in Exhibit 03, 04 and 05.
8. The IPC also states "If parking enforcement takes place outside of daylight hours you should ensure that signs are illuminated or there is sufficient other lighting. Appropriate illumination can be achieved in a variety of ways for example:
1. ensuring sufficient ambient lighting;
2. using reflective material on signage;
3. positioning signs where headlights are likely to illuminate them" and as shown in Exhibit 03, 04 and 05 this is not met as they are not adequetly lit nor ar they at a height for headlights to illuminate them.

is this okay now?

Melabear

Not_A_Hope said:

Well if I was the judge I would not accept photos a few seconds apart as evidence they provided a sufficient consideration period.

If you get this submitted today to both the court and the claimants solicitors I would not be surprised to see the PPC discontinue before the hearing. 

so shall i change the grace period bpa quote to the ipc quote and state i definitely didnt have a consideration period?